Talk:Cost-plus-incentive fee

Fundamental Flaws

The information contained in the article is flawed and not consistent with CPIF contracts under a USG contracting methodology. The information leaves out key characteristics of the CPIF contract structure and fundamental mechanisms. Furthermore, fees are structured against actual costs in the article and the example operation is thereby also flawed.

I will update at some point in time to accurately reflect the key characteristics and basic operation of a CPIF contract for USG use purposes. In a commercial contracting scheme, anything is acceptable as long as the two parties agree, however under a USG contract the concepts noted will cause a problem.

FightingTiger FightingTiger (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mistake in the example. Two of the cases show a profit of 80, I suspect that over budget example needs changing. Andrew Swallow (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ironed out the mistakes so that it looks acceptable until someone updates it with more substantial information. It's not my field of expertise but I had to understand it to pass my PMP. Anyway, my sources include "Keeping Large Projects Under Control: The Importance of Contract Type Selection", J in 't Veld and W A Peeters, Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd., 1989; "Choosing Contractor Payment Terms", Stephen Ward and Chris Chapman, International Journal of Project Management, 1994; and "Incentive Versus Cost-Plus Contracts in Defense Procurement", John R. Hiller and Robert D. Tollison, The Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Mar., 1978), pp. 239-248 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmrad (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]